Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1464/Chd/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08
Smt. Surinder Kaur Vs. The ITO C/o M/s Spall Enterprises W-1(3) K-298-299, Phase-VIII, Focal Point Ludhiana Ludhiana
PAN No. ACYPK8302K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Shri. Surinder Kaur Revenue By : Shri. Yoginder Mittal
Date of hearing : 09/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17/07/2018
ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M:
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of
the Ld. CIT(A) -1, Ludhiana dt. 21/10/2016.
The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
That the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is bad in law and not based on facts and circumstances of the case 2. That the appellant has already filed an appeal against the order of the CIT- (Appeals)-l u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961to which the order passed u/s 271(1) (c ) is pertained, of the On the facts and in the Circumstances ,of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty. 3. That On the facts and in the Circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,70,061.00 made on account of sundry creditors and confirming the addition of Rs. 6,15,000.00 on account of introduction of capital u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case as well as without proper investigating the facts of the case and without providing opportunity of natural justice to the appellant.
That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the additions made as per above without considering additional evidence u/s 46A of the Income tax act, 1961 in the shape of confirmation from creditors and gift deeds & affidavits received from the relatives of the appellant.
The appellant prays to quash the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-l, Ludhiana.
The penalty has been levied consequential to the assessment 3. proceedings completed under section 144A of the Income Tax Act,1961.
During the assessment proceedings the following actions have been made to the total income of the assessee.
a. Addition on account of valuation of Closing Stock: Rs. 6,45,500/-
b. Addition on account of sundry creditors : Rs. 5,70,061/-
c. Addition on account of introduction of capital: 6,15,000/-
The addition made on account of valuation of closing stock stands deleted in the appellate proceedings. Hence, penalty was levied on account of sundry creditors and on account of introduction of capital.
At the outset, during the hearing it was brought to our notice that assessee sought to file additional evidences which were required to adjudicate the case and the admission of the same has been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). The relevant portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the admission of additional evidences is as under:
The addition on account of sundry creditors was justified since the appellant failed to give the complete addresses of the said creditors and could not prove their genuineness. Regarding the addition on account of introduction of capital also, no plausible explanation was given during the assessment proceedings. The appellant tried to have a second innings by making a request for admitting additional evidence relating to the sundry creditors and also a gift deed in a bid to explain the said capital introduced, as a gift. However, the said additional evidence was not admitted as no reasonable cause was shown as to why it could not be produced before the AO, despite reasonable opportunity having been accorded. Thus, the appellant failed to explain the source of introduction of the said capital and the genuineness of the said sundry creditors. No explanation having been given during the penalty proceedings also, it is clear that the appellant has nothing to say in her defence and the AO was justified in holding that she has deliberately concealed the particulars of income with regard to the said additions.
On going through the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that while making an observation for not admitting additional evidences as the assessee is trying to have a second innings, at the same time Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee could not submit any explanation even during penalty proceedings is contradictory in nature. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not give any reasons why the additional
evidences could not be admitted under Rule 46A as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act,1961.
Hence, in fitness of things and interest of justice we hereby restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to reconsider admission of additional evidences and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the assessee to promptly submit replies to all the queries in the appellate proceedings and not abuse the trust reposed upon.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated : 17/07/2018 AG Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) The DR 5.